In light of yesterday's comment by Pelosi: “First of all, I am going to stick with my fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration on this. I think it was a very courageous decision that they made, and I support it,” and in refuting these recent advancements of the culture of death (here and here), it seems more action explaining why contraception and sterilization is morally wrong would be useful, rather than focusing only on the religious liberty aspect. By not offering the moral teaching alongside the the unconstitutionality of the HHS mandate and bad temporal effects of contraceptive drugs, we may be feeding into the mentality of freedom and physical health being more important than moral or spiritual health, which is damaged by these sins. Though it seems most are already desensitized to the moral danger, more damage can be prevented. The temporal danger of a threat to religious freedom or the effects of contraceptives stirs their attention, but since the bishops have the mic in these recent weeks, it would be a perfect opportunity to explain WHY we oppose these things. Just a thought.
On another point, I think that the statement Nancy Pelosi made yesterday: “I stand with my fellow Catholics on this [providing contraceptives]” cannot be tolerated by the bishops without comprimising their teaching authority on the issue.
At what point, if not now, is a public recognition that she is obstinately persevering in grave sin useful or beneficial? She must be made publicly aware of why the Church teaches contraception is wrong. Bishops have already made that clear implicitly in their original response, however, is preventative action regarding the reception of communion thing of the past? I think most Catholics are waiting for this public recognition because of the public scandal they are causing. I believe that they feel that the longer Nancy Pelosi is able to slap the 95% of bishops who have spoken in the face by posing other Catholics against them, the more she is effectively degrading the authority of the Church among those who are unaware of the gravity of these acts.
“For instance, on the question of a person who publicly and obstinately espouses the right of a woman to choose to abort the infant in her womb receiving Holy Communion, strikes me as something very clear in the 2,000 years of the church’s tradition – she’s always firmly held that a person who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin should not approach to receive Holy Communion and, if he or she does, should be denied Holy Communion.”
“…to avoid for the person – himself or herself – committing a sacrilege: in other words, receiving the Sacrament unworthily, and also because the holiness of the Sacrament itself demands that one be in a state of grace to receive the Body and Blood of Christ.”
“It is discouraging that either members of the Church claim not to understand this or they claim that in some way there is an excuse for someone who is publicly and obstinately in grave sin to receive Holy Communion,”
I know there are political implications to taking ecclesiastical action against these politicians; however I think that sometimes politics must take the backseat. Something to the effect of “You have three weeks to learn how, not to ‘violate’ your conscience, but to understand what teaching authority the successors of Christ have,” may do the trick. Perhaps this action may even call her towards conversion.
Oct 28, 2014 0The recent session of the Synod on the Family has been likened not a few times by commentators as an attempt at a mini-Vatican III. And this appellation has some validity, for the past year or more...
Jan 14, 2013 0
Oct 28, 2014 0
Oct 18, 2014 0